UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 9, 2010
ARTIES JOHNSON, JR., PETITIONER,
MIKE KNOWLES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Clifford Wallace United States Circuit Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. This is petitioner's fourth request for the appointment of counsel. There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel if "the interests of justice so require." In the present case, the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel and an accompanying letter to the court indicate that petitioner is under the mistaken impression that he is now "proceeding with an appeal" before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner's case is still before United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. His case was reassigned to a United States Circuit Judge, but the undersigned judge is acting in the capacity of a district court judge for purposes of this case, and all proceedings continue to be before the district court.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.